Posted - November 20 2017 : 5:49:55 PM A Border Patrol agent, Rogelio Martinez, was murdered last night and his partner was badly injured, while patrolling the Texas/Mexico border.

LEO Lives Matter! I wonder when that issue will get traction outside of the LEO community?

Agent Martinez, may you rest in peace!

25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

Malcolm

Posted - November 27 2017 : 8:17:03 PM I seem to remember a “story”from long ago, wherein the future King of Israel, while still a shepherd boy, armed with only his sling and “a few stones”, made quick work of a significantly larger Syrian opponent in body armor, and loaded up with the latest weaponry. Stones do kill rather well. Perhaps we could use a few boys with slings in the halls of Congress and the Senate, to slay the Swamp Dragons lurking there...(Rhetorically musing of course)

Many decades ago I saw a cartoon in Playboy. A stereotypical aged Latino was sitting down leaning on a building side. A small boy is in front of him. The speech balloon said: We've come far in this county Pepe. I was a wetback, your father is an illegal alien. You, my grandson, will be an undocumented worker!

I laughed, then I thought better of it. I don't recall who did the cartoon or when, but boy did he have a crystal ball.

Red states = RepublicanBlue states = DemocratThey definitely got that one backwards!

Abortion = pro-choiceWonder what the baby would say about that?

Illegal immigrants are “dreamers”

Preferred treatment of one group over another = “affirmative action”

What used to be ‘freedom of association’ has now become “discrimination”

‘Gun control’ in liberalspeak has become “common-sense gun-safety regulations”

Even the term “liberal” used to have a very different meaning, it used to be closer to what we mean today by ‘libertarian’.

Orwell nailed it!

WR Moore

Posted - November 26 2017 : 4:33:17 PM I expect like a great many here, I gag at the phrase "progressive". I remember all too well when "progressive political elements" was the proper term of art for the Marxist terrorists and those who supported them. I believe the term Lenin used for the supporters was useful idiots. Probably applied to the terrorists too.

The left/their media lackeys,, are using an old debating trick to "define the issue". If one candidate is "progressive", then the other side has to be reactionary, imperialist, capitalist, racist, sexist dogs. They're also trying to associate themselves with TR. The thing is, the progressive label got hung on TR by historians, not him.

Malcolm

Posted - November 25 2017 : 11:58:57 AM The current crop of Progressive(Marxist-morphed), unfortunately see THIER view of the world and those “beneath them”, as being an 8ntellextual manifestation, that THEY must rule the world, and issue edicts, for those with lesser (assumed) intellects, mus5 abide by. As with all totalitarians, they never abide by their own proclamations. Hence, those with badges can only fire upon the rock throwing subhumanoids, when the Marxists themselves are targeted. Their “Fairness Doctrine”, is schewed by their personal rectal myopia.

LittleBill

Posted - November 24 2017 : 4:37:52 PM I agree. I think the greatest danger to our nation may lie in the gradual ‘dumbing down’ of our populace: whereby upcoming generations, ever more ignorant of the lessons of history, and the facts of human nature that history teaches us, lose sight of why the values America was founded on are so necessary to human flourishing.

Why hard work and self-reliance are good for people, and dependency on the Gov’t is not; why it’s usually the case that minimum Gov’t = maximum freedom; why good people will always find it necessary to defend themselves against bad people; why it’s necessary to ‘filter’ what types of people we let in, if we want America to continue to be the greatest nation on Earth.

Instead, prompted by idealistic progressive notions— of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ and ‘the family of man’, and the idea that ‘there’s really no difference among the world’s races and cultures and religions’, and ‘all people are basically good, it’s only flawed human institutions that make them do bad things’ and ‘crime is the result of poverty and discrimination, when everyone has an equal opportunity, crime and violence will disappear’ and ‘all problems can be solved with a better Gov’t program’— they’ll happily buy into the programs the progressive elite is so eager to sell them on; programs which will be run by... the elitists.

Get rid of guns, open our borders to all, surrender our national sovereignty to the UN, agree that when anyone has a problem, it’s the job of Gov’t to fix it for them.... the progressive/elitist/globalist agenda can only happen when the majority of Americans have become clueless enough to agree to it. Which unfortunately, may not be that far away....

Here too, I believe the most important battle is for the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. All it will take to lose America is a clueless majority.

jle3030

Posted - November 24 2017 : 08:34:01 AM

quote:Originally posted by LittleBill

I think the elitists view most all ‘common people’ that way: as being not as smart as they are, not as educated as they are, not as sophisticated as they are— not worthy to rule, like they are. They’re the nobles, born to rule; the rest of us are the serfs, born to serve.

My guess is, many of them may also feel a bit ‘threatened’ in the presence of men who know how to handle themselves, in situations where the elitists would be completely helpless. And so they adopt that air of superiority, as a way of compensating for the fact of their inferiority in practical matters.

They’ve got plenty of theories about bad guys, but wouldn’t have a clue of what to do if they were confronted with one in real life, without a serf to call on to protect them.

The founding fathers were keenly aware of the universal tendency in governments for the elite to throttle the rights of the common people. That was the motivation behind the Bill of Rights. [Insert here the requisite commentary on the true purpose of the Second Amendment]

Upon adoption of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a prominent Philadelphia woman if they had created a monarchy or a republic. His answer comes down to us through history: "A republic, Madame, if you can keep it."

The founding fathers were as concerned about a pure democracy (rule by the majority) as by a monarchy (rule by the elite.)

Jeff

LittleBill

Posted - November 24 2017 : 08:15:24 AM Guns against rocks: not fair!

In the interest of a measured, appropriate response on the part pf LEOs, I’d suggest that cops be required to carry a selection of rocks with them at all times; so that when they’re threatened with rocks, they can respond in kind.

In the interest of fairness, they should be required to carry a selection of various rocks of different weights. And the weight of the rocks cops respond with must be within 10 percent of the average weight of the rocks being thrown at them.

That seems reasonable enough... except maybe we should include sticks too, since LEOs sometimes face aggressors armed with sticks....

oldmuleskinner

Posted - November 24 2017 : 12:28:07 AM About two years ago, three officers in Pasco, WA (SE Washington) shot and killed a man who was aggressively throwing rocks at them. They first tried a taser that had no effect. There were several videos taken by bystanders. The prosecutor decided not to press charges. The Mexican government protested the lack of charges, as the rock thrower was a Mexican national.

Lots of civilians might think that a gun vs a rock is an unfair, and unjustified use of force, but a five pound rock to the head is a pretty lethal projectile. Fortunately for the officers, they live in a part of our state that has conservative values and respects LEOs.

Whether it is a rock, a knife, a shovel, or a charging 300 pound aggressor, the targeted victim only has a fraction of a second to decide to pull the trigger. Unfortunately for police officers today, they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't...and if they don't, they might end up dead. On the other hand, if they do...they could easily face prosecution, and even if not prosecuted, it often ends their career.

To all of you who still wear a badge, be safe and thank you for your service!

LittleBill

Posted - November 23 2017 : 11:43:01 PM I think the elitists view most all ‘common people’ that way: as being not as smart as they are, not as educated as they are, not as sophisticated as they are— not worthy to rule, like they are. They’re the nobles, born to rule; the rest of us are the serfs, born to serve.

My guess is, many of them may also feel a bit ‘threatened’ in the presence of men who know how to handle themselves, in situations where the elitists would be completely helpless. And so they adopt that air of superiority, as a way of compensating for the fact of their inferiority in practical matters.

They’ve got plenty of theories about bad guys, but wouldn’t have a clue of what to do if they were confronted with one in real life, without a serf to call on to protect them.

WR Moore

Posted - November 23 2017 : 8:05:28 PM I was searching for a phrase to describe the manner in which elitists (although they'd never apply that label to themselves) view their protectors and seem to have left it out of my earlier post. I've kinda filled it in. Maybe a better description is that they tend to view the protectors in the same manner the nobles used to view the serfs: lower life forms.

Ace

Posted - November 23 2017 : 7:00:55 PM One of our deputies engaged in a chase, a car containing three serious bad guys. On a back gravel road, the rough ride caused her radio to come unglued, at which point she should have stopped the chase. She didn't---don't remember if it was because she caught them before she knew about the radio, or she just got caught up in the adrenaline---but ultimately she was facing all three, and no backup close. One drew a knife, threatened her with it, then threw it at her (to no effect) and all three jumped her, had her on the ground kicking the snot out of her while she was simply trying to cover up and keep them from getting her gun. They finally let off, and left her laying there--still alive.I asked her later why she didn't shoot when the guy pulled the knife, and/or when it was obvious they were going to jump her, plus was there any opportunity to use her gun while she was down. She said once she was down, there was no chance to get the gun out without them being able to take it; as to the pulled-knife and getting jumped part, she said the first/pretty much only thing going through her mind was that if she shot one or all, the brass would come down on her for responding so violently.Sad thing is, she was probably right. Ace

LittleBill

Posted - November 23 2017 : 10:18:10 AM

quote:Originally posted by WR Moore

There's a distressing tendency among certain folks to figure that those who've taken responsibility (entirely foreign concept in itself to them) to act to protect others. That seems to translate to a belief that "those people" signed up to be human sacrifices. Hey, the risk comes with the job.

The risk may come with the job, but I never found human sacrifice as part of the job description. Being fair, many of those folks simply have no life experience or training in the concept of personal risk and the realities of confrontation. I've experienced enough of the arrogant .....idiots to have to stretch to include that last, but they do exist and (some) can be educated.

Yeah, it was interesting to see how after the Baltimore (Freddie Gray) riots that led to 6 (?) officers getting charged, the cops (quite reasonably) backed off a bit in the worst neighborhoods.

Then, when murder rates and other violent crimes began to rise, suddenly “the community” was crying out for more police presence.

You can’t have it both ways....

Asking cops to step forward and risk their lives on a daily basis so the rest of us don’t have to— then assuming the worst in every instance, and treating them with disrespect, while telling them that it’s their job to “sacrifice themselves”— it won’t be long before nobody in their right mind wants to be a cop in places like Baltimore.

LittleBill

Posted - November 23 2017 : 10:07:02 AM

quote:Originally posted by Evan

What bothers me is perhaps the constant barrage of criticism of coppers caused them to hesitate because it was "only" rocks.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that this is happening, even if it’s only ‘subconsciously’.

Like any other human being, cops’ brains ‘automatically’ evaluate the risk of what they’re doing, before they act. If the worry of legal repercussions or ‘public outcry’ is there, they’ll naturally hesitate, even if only for a split-second.... which may be just long enough for the bad guys to get the upper hand.

WR Moore

Posted - November 23 2017 : 09:08:56 AM There's a distressing tendency among certain folks to figure that those who've taken responsibility (entirely foreign concept in itself to them) to act to protect others are different. That seems to translate to a belief that "those people" signed up to be human sacrifices. Hey, the risk comes with the job.

The risk may come with the job, but I never found human sacrifice as part of the job description. Being fair, many of those folks simply have no life experience or training in the concept of personal risk and the realities of confrontation. I've experienced enough of the arrogant .....idiots to have to stretch to include that last, but they do exist and (some) can be educated.

Malcolm

Posted - November 22 2017 : 7:47:15 PM Sadly, I have zero faith in our current US Attorney General, to the point, that I am waiting for his recusal in this matter as well. It seems our politicians are content with homicides of law enforcement agents by undocumented “immigrants”, and fear of enforcing existing laws.

LittleBill

Posted - November 21 2017 : 8:43:06 PM What else could it be?

Latest news report I heard was that the surviving officer suffered so much head trauma, that he can’t recall anything of what happened. Maybe his memory will come back... maybe not. So we might never know what happened. Were they ambushed from cover, jumped, and beaten with rocks? Or were they approached ‘peaceably’, then suddenly attacked?

I assume both officers were armed? Pistols only? Rifles? What were the rules of engagement they were operating under? Could a greater degree of alertness— or suspicion— have saved them?

Chris Christian

Posted - November 21 2017 : 4:49:56 PM

quote:Originally posted by cwhart

Saw several headlines earlier claiming the officers sustained their injuries from falling... just wow.

Yeah... officer winds up dead from massive, multiple head injuries and the "PC crowd" says he fell. That must be the clumsiest officer ever.... just kept falling, getting up, falling again,and hitting hitting his head on rocks multiple times. And, his back up seems to be equally clumsy.

What bothers me is perhaps the constant barrage of criticism of coppers caused them to hesitate because it was "only" rocks.

+1. Maybe this sad event will establish that rocks are indeed deadly weapons. It may not with the PC suits... but might work with a Grand Jury.

Evan

Posted - November 21 2017 : 12:01:06 PM What bothers me is perhaps the constant barrage of criticism of coppers caused them to hesitate because it was "only" rocks.

cwhart

Posted - November 21 2017 : 11:31:53 AM Sadly another example of the "cultural diversity" the left wants us to put up with experience with open borders. I'm sure they will claim the perpetrators only wanted a better life, too.

Pop Pop

Posted - November 21 2017 : 10:03:00 AM They are being tight lipped about what took place. Supposed to have a news conference later today. Evidently they were ambushed and beaten to death. Fox News reported, this morning, that the other officer is in very serious condition with serious head injuries.

gauchobill

Posted - November 21 2017 : 06:56:56 AM Maybe this will develop some support for "the wall".

gauchobill

Posted - November 21 2017 : 06:40:35 AM Maybe this will develop some support for "the wall".